I just viewed a 2-hour video of a presentation given by Richard C. Hoagland that just "floored" me. The presentation was "filmed" live at the
Earth-Keeper 2014 Star-Gate Event in Arizona. The video at YouTube is titled "Richard Hoagland - Revelations of the Chinese Moon Mission - Latest
Updates on Enterprise Mission". I normally wouldn't give Hoagland the time of day because he is well known on ATS as a blowhard and hoaxer, along with
his co-author Mike Bara (one of the most hated UFOlogists on par with Stanton Friedman and all of the other obfuscators).

For what it's worth, regardless of his reputation among ATS members, Hoagland is a captivating speaker, even though most of what he said went over my
head - too technical for my feeble brain.

The reason I watched the whole 2 hours is because I thought Hoagland would show lunar photos taken by the Chinese Chang'e 2 lunar rover and perhaps
some of them might show something that would not need colorizing. Hoagland did not include a slew of photos but when he showed one photo and nothing
stood out and then he showed the same photo but processed with software, the black background of the first photo now showed similar "sky glass
structures"!

Now, here is the dichotomy. The photos from the Apollo missions that Hoagland showed claiming that they showed glass or crystalline structures did so
because Hoagland enhanced them claiming that NASA hid what he revealed. The Chang'e 2 photos Hoagland showed were also enhanced. What's the truth?
Will all such photos always show what's not normally visible when enhanced with software? Inquisitive minds want to know.

I don't normally promote Hoagland but if you want to see material that's unusual and well presented, watch the video and come to your own conclusions.
At approximately the 2-hour mark, something happens to the camera that's weird as you can see in the screen shots I provide below. In photo #1 you see
Hoagland spinning around. In photo #2 Hoagland's head is distorted creating 2 faces! In photo #3 he turns colors! I kid you not.

Jeez, it's probably been five years since I even heard of him. Last time around he was saying he'd downloaded a bunch of photos that were *proof* that
Phobos was a spaceship. Then he said NASA had hacked his PC, stolen them back and deleted the evidence from their own site.

He might have been a tourist to Planet Reality, but he did bring some bold stories and a bit of colour to the scene.

ETA - is that Arthur C Clarke's face popping up behind the Moon in the intro?? What the heck is THAT about?!

Jeez, it's probably been five years since I even heard of him. Last time around he was saying he'd downloaded a bunch of photos that were *proof* that
Phobos was a spaceship. Then he said NASA had hacked his PC, stolen them back and deleted the evidence from their own site.

He might have been a tourist to Planet Reality, but he did bring some bold stories and a bit of colour to the scene.

ETA - is that Arthur C Clarke's face popping up behind the Moon in the intro?? What the heck is THAT about?!

"Different phases of the changes of the physics." Huh??

Hoagland has always "been there"! He's indefatigable. You can't take that away from him, he just marches on letting the bodies lay where they fall.
He's immune to criticism. Although it's satisfying to poke holes at him.

Hoagland is also widely believed to have been the first to deduce the tantalizing notion of an ocean, possibly harboring life, flowing beneath
the icy crust of Europa (right), one of the moons of Jupiter. Even Arthur C. Clarke, in an acknowledgment at the end of his book 2010: Odyssey Two
(his sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey), credits Hoagland:

"The fascinating idea that there might be life on Europa, beneath ice-covered oceans kept liquid by the same Jovian tidal forces that heat Io
[Jupiter's volcanic moon], was first proposed by Richard C. Hoagland in the magazine Star & Sky ("The Europa Enigma," January 1980 [accessible from
the very bottom of this page]). This quite brilliant concept has been taken seriously by a number of astronomers (notably NASA's Institute of Space
Studies, Dr. Robert Jastrow), and may provide one of the best motives for the projected GALILEO Mission."

When Greenberg sent to Arthur C. Clarke (and others) six pages summarizing the history/chronology of this evolving view of Europa, Clarke replied that
"I have [since] become aware of the fact that many others had thought of it first, as you point out." But Clarke also expressed his enduring gratitude
to Hoagland for his "excellent 1980 article [which was] my first introduction to the idea."

originally posted by: klassless
Hoagland is also widely believed to have been the first to deduce the tantalizing notion of an ocean, possibly harboring life, flowing beneath the icy
crust of Europa (right), one of the moons of Jupiter.

Just another hoax from Hoaxland!

Second, the idea of oceans on or in the moons of Jupiter had been around for many years before Hoagland published his article. John Lewis, a
scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona published an article in 1971 about this in volume 15 of Icarus, a
(scientific!) journal of planetary sciences. The article was entitled "Satellites of the Outer Planets: Their Physical and Chemical Nature". At the
time, his arguments were based on somewhat incomplete data, but later he published a paper (with Guy Consolmagno) which appeared in 1976 in the book
"JUPITER: Studies of the interior, atmosphere, magnetosphere, and satellites" (edited by T. Gehrels) which gives better details of the moons'
interiors. This clearly establishes that Lewis thought of this ocean idea before Hoagland did. Third, what about Hoagland's claim that he thought of
life in those oceans first as well? Guess what-- he's wrong there too. As Dr. Ralph Greenberg says on his page about the history of the concept of
life in Europa: "On June 19th and 20th, 1979, the conference "Life in the Universe" took place at NASA's Ames Research Center. Benton Clark gave a
lecture [titled] Sulfur: Fountainhead of Life in the Universe... Clark then explained how sulfur could play the role of oxygen, and that deep-sea
volcanic emissions could potentially provide all the necessary ingredients for a self-sustained ecosystem. In the final part of his lecture, Clark
raised the possibility that life might exist in undersurface oceans [emphasis mine] on the icy satellites in our Solar System, including Europa,
Ganymede, and Callisto in particular. Greenberg goes on: In his book Brother Astronomer - Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in 2000,
Consolmagno gives an account of a conversation that he had with Carl Sagan just before he was to present his work on the models for oceans on the
Galilean satellites at a conference about Jupiter in 1975. Consolmagno suggested to Sagan that such oceans might be places to look for life. Note the
dates: mid-1979, before Hoagland's paper, and 1975, long before. Hoagland might argue that he was writing his paper at the same time as the first
conference, but Consolmagno still beat him by 5 years. Greenberg still goes on: "Those discoveries on Earth (black smokers), together with the
theories of possible oceans on Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, inspired some individuals to already make the link in the late 1970s. One notable
example is the physicist Gerald Feinberg, who came to this idea early in 1979, and realized that a theory that he had developed with the biochemist
Robert Shapiro (presented in their book Life Beyond Earth, published in 1980) might explain how life could develop deep in those Galilean oceans...."
So, we see that Hoagland was neither the first to think of an ocean on Europa, nor was he the first to think of life there! So why does he continue to
make these claims?

That was already acknowledged in the post by Klassless. At the foot of the quote:

When Greenberg sent to Arthur C. Clarke (and others) six pages summarizing the history/chronology of this evolving view of Europa, Clarke replied
that "I have [since] become aware of the fact that many others had thought of it first, as you point out." But Clarke also expressed his enduring
gratitude to Hoagland for his "excellent 1980 article [which was] my first introduction to the idea."

Are there glass domes on the moon?
During the 1960s the domed city concept was widely discussed outside the confines of science fiction. Is it a coincidence that during the space race
such domes were discussed? Probably not. To us it’s just yet another example how history is repeating itself and how close our geniuses have
approached the knowledge of our creators (thanks to the hidden knowledge of that same creators of course). So called futuristic glass domes are just a
fraction away to be constructed. And nanotechnology will use flexible glass to protect those domes against a lot of dangers (for instance dangerous
rays from the sun). We think on the moon are a lot of glass domes. Richard Hoagland may be exaggerating, but his name is not Richard Hoaxland. A lot
of what he says makes sense ... if you believe in the ancient aliens theory.
By the way, Hoagland is not the only one who believes in glass domes on the moon (in the site you find the link). He’s a lunatic according to many,
but the man has an admirable perseverance -or is a stubborn die hard- (depending the angle you are looking at him). Admittedly, the sites we are
referring to are not scientific. But we can safely assume real scientists never would come forward saying: there are probably glass domes on the moon.
Their reputation would be burned to the ground for the rest of their lives. And maybe not only their reputation because when we wrote the chapter 'To
whom it may concern’ (only for those with real persistence) we got a very nasty feeling.
Only don’t hope for a disclosure from NASA. That would be naïve. NASA wants us to discuss about the moon or Mars and the photos they are
publishing. A yes/no discussion is something that fits in their strategy to keep us busy.

"He might have been a tourist to Planet Reality, but he did bring some bold stories and a bit of colour to the scene. "

Couldn't agree more. I always loved listening to his theories, but for every interesting and potentially valid issue he raised, there were 3-4
crackpot conspiracies that came with it. It was especially frustrating because his background and credentials would otherwise make him very credible,
if it weren't for all the things he has said.

My favorite theory of his was that Old Navy Stores are actually secret society bases.

"He might have been a tourist to Planet Reality, but he did bring some bold stories and a bit of colour to the scene. "

Couldn't agree more. I always loved listening to his theories, but for every interesting and potentially valid issue he raised, there were 3-4
crackpot conspiracies that came with it. It was especially frustrating because his background and credentials would otherwise make him very credible,
if it weren't for all the things he has said.

My favorite theory of his was that Old Navy Stores are actually secret society bases.

Agreed -- I worked with him on 'Star and Sky' magazine in 1980-1981 and he was a delightful tale-spinner, the taller the better. My favorite was 'the
thing in the ring'. He's made a good living with an apparently exotic personal life style out of it. I'd be happier if he hadn't polluted so many
naïve young minds along the way.

Hoaxland doesn't really explain how the Chinese lander managed to land without crashing through, or even seeing, this alleged dome, nor do any of the
previou Chinese probes identify any sort of glass structure.

There is another theory regarding these moon photo artifacts that claims these are the result of defects in the front-screen projection system that
was used to fabricate the images here on Earth (probably at some CIA photo-lab). If you watch the Blu Ray release of Stanley Kubric's 2001: A Space
Odyssey, the same artifacts are present during the opening sequence with the pre-human ape-like creatures.

It wasn't a presentation to laugh at unless you understood what he talked about and recognized errors in logic or material. If I laughed when the
video became weird, not at the turning head but definitely "yes" when his head separated (the second photo) if you also saw the whole thing happen. I
had to laugh for I've never seen glitches like that.

Another weird thing: all throughout the video you can see mostly in the dark areas "orbs"!

That was already acknowledged in the post by Klassless. At the foot of the quote:

When Greenberg sent to Arthur C. Clarke (and others) six pages summarizing the history/chronology of this evolving view of Europa, Clarke replied
that "I have [since] become aware of the fact that many others had thought of it first, as you point out." But Clarke also expressed his enduring
gratitude to Hoagland for his "excellent 1980 article [which was] my first introduction to the idea."

And Gary Posner's website includes possibly as much info as is available on the subject. Here is Gary's link, again, so that you don't have to scroll
up to find it: www.gpposner.com...

Are there glass domes on the moon?
During the 1960s the domed city concept was widely discussed outside the confines of science fiction. Is it a coincidence that during the space race
such domes were discussed? Probably not. To us it’s just yet another example how history is repeating itself and how close our geniuses have
approached the knowledge of our creators (thanks to the hidden knowledge of that same creators of course). So called futuristic glass domes are just a
fraction away to be constructed. And nanotechnology will use flexible glass to protect those domes against a lot of dangers (for instance dangerous
rays from the sun). We think on the moon are a lot of glass domes. Richard Hoagland may be exaggerating, but his name is not Richard Hoaxland. A lot
of what he says makes sense ... if you believe in the ancient aliens theory.
By the way, Hoagland is not the only one who believes in glass domes on the moon (in the site you find the link). He’s a lunatic according to many,
but the man has an admirable perseverance -or is a stubborn die hard- (depending the angle you are looking at him). Admittedly, the sites we are
referring to are not scientific. But we can safely assume real scientists never would come forward saying: there are probably glass domes on the moon.
Their reputation would be burned to the ground for the rest of their lives. And maybe not only their reputation because when we wrote the chapter 'To
whom it may concern’ (only for those with real persistence) we got a very nasty feeling.
Only don’t hope for a disclosure from NASA. That would be naïve. NASA wants us to discuss about the moon or Mars and the photos they are
publishing. A yes/no discussion is something that fits in their strategy to keep us busy.

I'm not an expert on anything (but knowledgeable as hell!) so I can't say without evidence that there are no glass domes or crystalline structures on
the moon. But common sense, logic and reason guide me. Starting in the early 1980s I viewed thousands of photos primarily contained in NASA pictorial
volumes which had high resolution photos. Their high resolution did not translate to digital copies of same found all over the Internet. Digital
copies are missing that extra bit of resolution that allows them to match the minute details seen even in printed photos. And, of course, there are
the poster size photos that NASA sells printed from emulsion film negatives.

I've looked at the moon for many hours through various telescopes, amateur and professional some of which I've owned. Never, in all of my viewing did
I ever see anything out of the ordinary. No type of reflections that would cause me to do a double look.

Some "glass domes" are really the effect of high albedo which can be blindingly white giving the impression that the surface is transparent. Or, as
shown below in 2 photographs, one normal perspective and the other inverted, one has to adjust our eyes to see that the inverted photo is an optical
illusion but if you try hard enough you can overcome the illusion.

Finally, there is a thread here where Hoagland's claim of crystalline towers turned out to be just a simple hoax on Hoagland's part. He turned the
photo upside down and what he claimed were crystalline towers was just "lava" (not sure what it was called in the thread) pouring down the sides of a
crater! You have to watch what is presented by Hoagland with a grain of salt which is also crystalline!

"He might have been a tourist to Planet Reality, but he did bring some bold stories and a bit of colour to the scene. "

Couldn't agree more. I always loved listening to his theories, but for every interesting and potentially valid issue he raised, there were 3-4
crackpot conspiracies that came with it. It was especially frustrating because his background and credentials would otherwise make him very credible,
if it weren't for all the things he has said.

My favorite theory of his was that Old Navy Stores are actually secret society bases.

You also have to double-check his background and credentials as he is guilty of lying through his teeth. I think that Jim Oberg has provided truthful
information showing that Hoagland deserves it when members call him Hoaxland. Why some brilliant people find it necessary to go over the top
when they're safe at home on the top is beyond me.

In response to an email from an interested reader of Enterprise Mission.com, David Morrison, the director of NASA’s Lunar Science Institute,
had this to say about my venerable co-author:

“I know Hoagland, and I also know that quite a few items in his bio are fiction: namely his references to working for NASA, working with Sagan, and
talking at Ames. I would not want to stoop to "debate" with him. My interests are in science, not pseudoscience.”

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.